Open main menu

概要Edit

推薦にあたってEdit

推薦者のためのガイドラインEdit

まずはじめに、『秀逸な画像ガイドライン』、『画像のガイドライン』をお読みください。

ここでは推薦画像の評価を受ける・する際の必要事項を要約して紹介します。

  • 解像度 - 200万ピクセル以下の写真画像は、特別な理由が無い限り却下されます。1,600 x 1,200 ピクセル(1.92メガピクセル)は200万ピクセルには届いていない事にご注意ください。
コモンズに置かれた画像は一般的なPCモニターのみで閲覧されるとは限らず、プリントアウトや高解像度モニターで表示される可能性もあります。将来的にもどのような機器が用いられるようになるかは誰にも予想出来ないので、推薦画像が可能な限り高い解像度を保っている事は重要な事なのです。
  • スキャン画像 - 公式な方針ではありませんが、Help:スキャニングページで各種様々な画像を準備するための有用なアドバイスが提供されています。
  • フォーカス - 通常、重要な被写体は全て焦点が合っていなければいけません。
  • 前景と背景 - 前景や背景に主題ではない物が写り込むと、それは“余計なもの”になり得ます。前景にある物が主題の重要な部分を隠していないか、背景にあるものが構図を損ねていないか(例:後ろの街灯が人物の頭の上から生えているように見える、等)を確認しましょう。
  • 全体品質 - 推薦される画像には高い技術品質が要求されます。
  • デジタル補正 - 見る人を欺いてはいけません。写真画像のキズ・ホコリ等を修正する、良い編集、故意に人を騙す目的でない限り、デジタル補正は一般的に歓迎されます。例を挙げると、色合い/露出補正、シャープ/ボカシ、遠近感歪み補正、トリミング(切り取り)等がこれにあたります。背景に写り込んだ余計な物を取り除く等のさらに大がかりな修正は、{{Retouched picture}}テンプレートを画像ページへ貼付け、修正した旨を記述しましょう。記述漏れや記述ミスがある等、主題を不正確に見せる編集は決して受け入れられません。
  • 価値 - 『全ての画像の中でも特に際立ち、最も価値のある画像』が我々の大きな目標です。秀逸な画像はそれぞれの分野の中でも別格でなけらばならず、故に次の点に留意して下さい。
    • たいていの夕日は美しく見えますが、そういう画像のほとんどは他の夕日画像と大差ありません。
    • 夜景は美しいですが、普通は日中に撮影された写真の方がより詳細を見せてくれます。
    • 必ずしも『美しさに価値がある』わけではありません。

技術的側面では露出『構図』『動感表現』被写界深度等を見ます。

  • 露出とはシャッタースピードと絞りとの組み合わせの事を言い、適切なトーンカーブが見せる陰影〜ハイライトが有用なディティールを描写します。これをラティチュード(露光寛容度)と言い、このラティチュードの陰影〜ハイライトの領域内において、画像を暗め、中庸、明るめに作る事が出来ますが、デジタルカメラ及びデジタル画像はこのラティチュードの範囲がフィルムに比べて狭いです。ディティールの欠損した影部分は必ずしも「悪い」わけではなく、実際にその様な効果が望ましい場合(部分)もあります。ただしディティールの欠損したハイライト部分が大きく面積を占めるのは良くありません。
  • 構図とは画像画面内での各要素の配置の事を言います。“三分割法”は構図作成には良い方法で、美術学校でも教えられています。まず、画像に水平線と垂直線をそれぞれ2本引き、画像を水平・垂直方向とも3分割します。主題を中央に配置するとたいていは画面に面白味を欠き、水平線と垂直線が交差する4つの交点の内どれか1つに主題を置いた方が良い画面になるでしょう。地平線は画面を半分に切ってしまうので、通常は地平線を中央に配置するべきではありません。上寄り、若しくは下寄りに配置させる方が良いでしょう。主たる考え方としては空間を上手に使い、躍動感・臨場感のある画面を作るという事です。
  • 動感表現 - ここでは被写体の「動き」を表現する手法を紹介します。動きのある被写体は止まって見えるか、もしくはブレて写りますが、これらはどちらの方が良いとは必ずしも言えず、どのような表現意図を持っているかによります。「動感」は主題と共に写り込んでいる他の背景等との関係で表現されます。例えばレーシングカーの撮影。車と背景とが共に止まって見えては、見る側にスピード感は伝わってきません。 なので撮影手法によって車は画面内で止まっているように写り、かつ背景をブレさせることでスピード感が表現され、このような手法を「パンニング(流し撮り)」と呼びます。一方で、背景と共に止まって撮られた高く跳躍したバスケットボール選手は、これは決定的瞬間の「不自然」なポーズになり、これも良い写真になり得るでしょう。
  • 被写界深度(DOF)とは主題の前側から後ろ側までのフォーカスエリアの事を言います。被写界深度は全ての画像で明解な意図のもと選択され、深い、または浅い被写界深度は、画像に品質を与えもし、また損なわせもします。浅い被写界深度は、主題を他の被写体から切り離し、見せたい被写体に注目を集めることが出来ます。深い被写界深度は空間を強調させる事が出来ます。広角(短焦点)レンズは深い被写界深度、逆に望遠(長焦点)レンズは浅い被写界深度が得られる傾向があります。また絞りを絞り込むと被写界深度は深く、解放すると浅い被写界深度が得られます。

グラフィック要素では形状、ボリューム、色、テクスチャー、遠近感、バランス、比率 等を見ます。

  • 形状とは主題に対する輪郭線、及び形状を言います。
  • ボリュームとは主題の立体感に対する品質を言います。立体感は横からのライティングで表現出来、反対に正面からのライティングは被写体を平坦に見せる傾向があり、不向きとされています。自然光の中でベストな光を得るには、早朝か、もしくは夕方の日の光が良いでしょう。
  • は大変重要で、強すぎる色合いは好ましくありません。
  • テクスチャーとは主題の表面材質の描写性に於ける品質を言います。表面材質は横からのライティングにより強調され、手に触れて伝わるかのような質感を与えます。
  • 遠近感とは、画像の画面内若しくは外にある消失点で繋がる放射状の直線、これに沿った形で現れる「角度」により表現されます。
  • バランスでは画像の画面内での重心が左右均衡か、若しくは片方に寄る等適切な配置が成されているかを見ます。
  • 比率では画面の大きさに対する被写体の大きさを見ます。一般的に、小さな被写体は小さく写真に表現してしまう傾向にありますが、相応しい撮影手法により小さな被写体を実寸とは逆に大きく見せる事が可能です。例えば、小さな花を大きな山よりも大きく見る事が出来ます。この手法を指して「倒置法」と呼びます。
主題の全ての要素を画像に盛込む必要はありません。多くの写真はそれぞれの個性で評価出来ます。すなわち、画像の色やテクスチャー等々により判断出来ます。
  • 『象徴性か妥当性か』 ー 『秀逸な画像』ではしばしばこのようなテーマで意見論争が起こる傾向にあります。技術的・品質的には出来の悪い写真でも極めて撮影困難な被写体を捉えた写真は、凡庸な被写体を写した品質的に良い写真よりも評価されます。もちろん撮影困難な被写体を写し、かつ品質も良い写真は極めて価値の高い写真と言えます。
画像は時に撮影者と評価者、若しくはどちらか片方の文化的な偏りが見られます。画像の意図は画像そのものの文化的背景により評価されるべきであり、評価者の文化的背景に依存してはいけません。イメージは人に語りかけ、そして慈しみ、怒り、拒絶、幸せ、悲しみ等の感情を喚起させる力を持っています。良い写真から与えられる心地よさには限りがありません。


画像のガイドラインを事前に読めば、あなたの推薦が成就する可能性を最大限に引き伸ばしてくれるでしょう。

新規推薦Edit

推薦に値する価値があると考えられる画像を作った、または見つけたならば、その画像に適切な説明ライセンスが与えられているかを確認し、以下に従ってください。

ステップ1:画像名(接頭Image:を含む)を下のテキストボックス内の文字列の後にコピー&ペースト、正しく Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg と記入されているかを確認し、続いて『作品を推薦』ボタンをクリックします。


ステップ2:ページ編集画面上にある指示に従い必要箇所を付記、ページを保存してください。

ステップ3:ステップ2で作成したページへのリンクをFeatured picture candidates/candidate listへ手動で挿入します。ページ編集をクリックし、候補リスト最上部に以下の書式で推薦画像へのリンクを加えます。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:推薦画像名.jpg}}

投票Edit

投票には以下のテンプレートを使用します:

  • {{支持}}または{{Support}} (  Support  Support),
  • {{反対}}または{{Oppose}} (  Oppose  Oppose),
  • {{中立}}または{{Neutral}} (  Neutral  Neutral),
  • {{コメント}}または{{Comment}} (  Comment  Comment),
  • 情報:{{Info}} (  Info),
  • 質問:{{Question}} (  Question).

テンプレート{{FPX|理由}}を用いて、推薦画像が秀逸な画像の推薦に相応しくない旨を指摘出来ます。テンプレートの「理由」部分に、秀逸な画像には明確に値しない事の説明を書き加えます(可能ならば英語で)。

あなたが何故その画像を好むか、または好まないか、特に(  Supportや(  Opposeの投票をする際は簡単な理由を加えましょう。また署名(~~~~)も忘れずに。匿名投票は受け付けられません。

秀逸な画像からの除外Edit

時も経ればやがて『秀逸な画像』の基準も変わります。かつては“充分に価値に値する”と決定されたであろう画像も、その価値は普遍ではありません。ここでは「もはや『秀逸な画像』に値しない」と考えられる画像をリストアップします。リストされた画像へは、{{Keep}}   Keep 及び {{維持}}   Keep (=『秀逸な画像』に値する)、または{{Delist}}   Delist 及び {{除外}}   Oppose (=『秀逸な画像』に値しない)を投票します。

あなたが『秀逸な画像』の価値基準に値しないと考える画像があれば、除外候補として提出できます。除外したい画像の画像名(接頭Image:を含む)を下のテキストボックスの文字列の後にコピー&ペーストします。


あなたが作成した新規除外候補のページに以下を加えます。

  • 画像の作者、投稿者等の出所情報。
  • その画像の“過去の秀逸な画像への推薦”ページへのリンク(画像ページの「リンク節」に表示されています)。
  • あなたが除外と考える理由とあなたの署名。

次に、Commons:Featured picture candidates/removalを編集し、下記の書式で作成した除外候補のページのリンクを手動で最上段に挿入します。

{{Commons:Featured picture candidates/removal/Image:除外画像名.jpg}}

秀逸な画像の候補での方針Edit

総則Edit

  1. 投票期間を終えた後、結果は推薦日時から数えて10日後(下記タイムテーブル参照)に決定します。投票期間は推薦日時から数えて9日と23時間59分です。10日、またはそれを超えた投票はカウントされません。
  2. 匿名寄稿者による推薦を歓迎します。
  3. 匿名寄稿者による議論への参加を歓迎します。
  4. 匿名寄稿者による投票はカウントされません。
  5. 推薦者票は投票へはカウントされません。支持は明示的かつ言明される必要があります。
  6. 推薦者は自身の推薦をいつでも取り下げる事が出来ます。推薦を取り下げるには "I withdraw my nomination" (推薦を取り下げます)と書くか、テンプレート {{withdraw|~~~~}} を加えます。
  7. ウィキメディア・コモンズのプロジェクトの目的は、全てのウィキメディアプロジェクト(将来的なプロジェクト含む)に於いて自由に利用可能な画像を集積するセントラル・データベースを提供することである、ということを忘れないでください。セントラル・データベースは単純にウィキメディアの保管庫と言うわけではなく、また『秀逸な画像』等のプロジェクトに応じた判断をされるべきではありません。
  8. 推薦日から数えて5日間支持を受けられなかった画像(推薦者票含まず)は候補リストから外されます。(下記タイムテーブル参照)
  9. テンプレート{{FPX}}が貼られた画像は、テンプレート{{FPX}}の適用後は推薦者以外の支持票が無い限り、48時間後に候補リストから外されます。

秀逸と除外のルールEdit

候補画像は下記必要事項に準じて秀逸な画像に認定されます。

  1. 適切なライセンス情報が添付されている。
  2. 最低5票以上の支持票を得ている。
  3. 支持:反対比率が2:1 (賛成が3分の2の過半数)以上である。
  4. 2つの同様な画像での異なったバージョンは同時に『秀逸な画像』へは認定されず、より支持票の多かった一枚を認定します。

除外ルールでは、投票期間、及びリストから外される期間は秀逸ルールと同じ期間を取ります。除外候補提出後5日間で提出者以外の   Delist   Oppose)票が得られなかった候補は、5日間ルールが適用され、候補リストから外されます。

常連ユーザーが推薦・投票の完了方法に従って、推薦投票を閉じることがあります。終了方法に関してはCommons:Featured picture candidates/What to do after voting is finishedを参照。

何よりも礼儀を忘れずにEdit

どうか、あなたが評価するその画像が「人の作品」であることを忘れないでください。「これはヒドイ」、「こんなのキライだ」と言ったような表現は避けましょう。もしあなたが『反対』に票を投じなければならないのなら、思いやりを忘れずに。また、あなたの話す英語は、また誰か他の人の話す英語とは同じではないでしょう。慎重に言葉を選んでください。

それでは良い評価を。そして、全てのルールは壊すことが出来るという事を忘れないでください。

関連項目Edit

目次Edit

Contents

秀逸な画像の候補Edit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Trillium grandiflorum at the North Walker Woods.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 03:20:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:New Brighton Pier during the sunset, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 03:00:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tempio Capitolino Piazza del Foro Brescia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 19:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
  •   Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the subject very much and I think it deserves an FP, but can something be done about the noise in the sky? I find it a little bit too much at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is not rilevant at normal size (100%). You must not blow up the image ad infinitum --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please fix CA. Some NR on the sky would also help, per Cmao. -- King of ♠ 02:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I see a bunch of dust spots at full size, though they're subtle; the most evident ones are near the upper right corner, but there are others. After you fix them (or at least the most evident ones), I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-1c.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 17:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info View of River Lima and bridge, in Ponte da Barca, Portugal. Second try (see here, plese). There is nothing wrong with the color space and Hugin is not to blame. Maybe only the blue channel was too close to saturation. I made minor adjustments. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I still like the colours to be honest, I think they're quite effective at conveying the mood. Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - The sky was really that aquamarine? And did the clouds look as blotchy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Aletta Jacobs, 1895-1905.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 06:56:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Stargazer snake eel (Brachysomophis cirrocheilos) (14419490013).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 17:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Ok Eatcha, time for "The Talk" since you are still a bit new here and don't know everything about the FPC system. Please read these posts: Post 1 and Post 2. Thanks! --Cart (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cart for notifying me about the problem, but it's actually designed to read any image larger than 150 as an alternative. ∴ any image which is defined smaller than 150 can be used without any problem. Please define them smaller than 150px, it's not a function of actual file size. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 12:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, what is written in the Bot description and what is happening in reality are often two very different things since the Bot is malfunctioning on many levels. This little eye is smaller than your little happy guy, even so it caused the Bot to close the nom like this with an "Alt" comment. Do as you wish, I just hope you are not causing any trouble for this nom. --Cart (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I actually read this in the codes of the bot, but I do not want to mess with this nom. I'm removing it. Will try it on my monkey nom. Thanks for quick reply -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Newton portrait with apple tree.svgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 09:04:06 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • The engraving you found is certainly closer to the one in the nomination. Looking at the curls, necktie and shadows in the that engraving, it might be based on the one I found (1720) since it is just a book illustration of a later date (1878). --Cart (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • didn't "find" the engraving. The file description gives sources for the Newton engraving and the tree engraving. Only the apple is original. I agree that there are similarities (the mouth shape is different) which may indicate it being derivative. The etch marks are nearly identical in the SVG. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I expressed myself in a clumsy way, I apologize. --Cart (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't understand why sky in the left side of the tree is black but on the other side is white. The reproduction in SVG can't have been trivial but there is less detail than the original, especially where the dark area of hair has effectively been crushed to solid black. One other problem with the montage is that Newton is lit from the left, the tree is lit from the front-right and the apple from the front. The apple just seems randomly placed. -- Colin (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The composition, light, placing of apple, partial heavy frame and everything is well within the artistic freedom and style of Art Nouveau. Nothing wrong with it, I only question if this work is original enough to be FP. Looking at the style of the creator, I'd also guess that the tree is borrowed from some other work. --Cart (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes only the apple is original. I guess it just doesn't work for me :-). It also isn't clear to me why one would want to emulate an etching in SVG rather than create a more realistic image. -- Colin (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Atrists, artists, artists... strange bunch of people with strange ideas, you know.   --Cart (talk) 13:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Tukuche Village-0660.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 08:26:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Places/Natural#Nepal
  •   Info created by Bijay chaurasia - uploaded by Bijay chaurasia- nominated by Bijay chaurasia -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Bijay chaurasia (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I was surprised to be drawn into this photo. The lazy afternoon everyday scene with that stunning background makes it all somewhat surreal. The vanishing point lines are very nice with the bike accentuating it all. --Cart (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The mountains and the clouds are beautiful, but the poles and the wires ruin the picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I agree with Cart about the composition, but the sharpness could be better. Cmao20 (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I have applied a tiny bit of Smart Sharpness to the photo, please revert if you don't like it. --Cart (talk) 09:54, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me as well, Thank you--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It looks very busy. The poles and the motorcycle are disturbing. The eye is witching from one point to the other. --XRay talk 11:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The scenery is very nice due to the mountains, but the quality isn't quite QI level, sorry. --A.Savin 11:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Btw, other photographer in EXIF data? Bijay, how do you explain that? --A.Savin 11:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This one as I am not sure if I want to support or oppose it--BoothSift 22:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Sepia smithi.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 03:42:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Landscape with stormy clouds and a pirogue on the Mekong at golden hour in Si Phan Don.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 03:01:26 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Clouds would fit also, but Natural gathers several elements, and that's more a landscape for me. Concerning the shadow, reducing the intensity with Lightroom would work but I prefer not to alter the reality. The boat is in the light. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral the big shadow is the only thing keeping me from supporting, per Podzemnik. I've added a note for a crop suggestion that makes it more powerful as the lower half of the image is much brighter that way and the boat seems to be escaping into the light instead of under another dark cloud. – Lucas 06:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Ermell (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Beautiful landscape and great mood but the big shadow unfortunately spoils it for me. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cart (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - This is a truly awesome scene, in the original sense of the word, and I love the shadow, which creates contrast high and low with the bright part. I find myself thinking of Romantic landscape compositions. Great capture of a moment! I hope you weren't utterly drenched a minute later. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I escaped under a tree, during approx 15 minutes. Thanks for your comment -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:"Wind Mountain" Columbia R - NARA - 102278851 (page 1).pngEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 23:45:09 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic_media
  •   Info created by unknown- uploaded by US National Archives bot - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ezarateesteban 23:45, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Hi. The identification of this photo is incomplete, so I cannot judge the photo yet. From https://catalog.archives.gov/id/305488, the link that is given in the file description: "These records are manuscript watercolor views along the northwest boundary between the Rocky Mountains and Point Roberts. The sketches were created by James W. Alden who accompanied the survey party that, during the 1860's and in compliance with the Treaty of 1846, was responsible for recording characteristics of the northwestern boundary of the United States." This information is also provided there: "Specific Media Type: Paper". So "Author" is not "Unknown or not provided" but James W. Alden, and the medium must be specified as "Watercolor on paper". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Can you examine the NARA template properties and set the appropriate parameter to remove the "Please do not overwrite this file" warning -- this is a restoration file, rather than an original. Also the "This file was provided to" licence text isn't correct for this file either, since this file is a derivative. What makes you think the original backing paper was neutral grey, and the painting from 1850s on pure Xerox white copy paper? Look at the white swirling cloud on the right and the leftmost edge of it. In the original, the artist has given the cloud a bright white "silver lining" but in your restoration it is a cold blue tint. I think it is one thing to repair damage but quite another to change the colours of an artwork, without any reference. It will have yellowed/aged over the years, but is unlikely to have been a modern white. Also I don't understand why the border has got slim black/transparent triangles -- it's as though you rotated the whole image after cropping. But the original border/background paper is huge so the background can be cut square. -- Colin (talk) 07:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Support now, thanks very much. -- Colin (talk) 16:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Regretfully, I agree with Colin, but I would go back to the original and see whether a more subtle restoration is possible that's a little more true to the original. Cmao20 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Very good now, thanks.   Support clearly. Cmao20 (talk) 18:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  Comment Redone, only removed dust spots Ezarateesteban 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment - That seems to look better, and you should ping those who voted. And you fixed the problems I laid out above. But what's with this notice in Metadata? "Copyright (C) reserved" Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
The metadata and the copyright is copied from the original that was uploaded as PD so it isn't an issue IMHO
@Cmao20: @Colin: @Ikan Kekek: Ezarateesteban 13:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Why isn't it an issue for the metadata to contradict the copyright status? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
"Copyright (C) reserved" Who reserved that copyright? It may added by the camera. Furthermore the artwork is made is made between 1857-1862 so is in PD in USA. There is nothing to doubt about copyright Ezarateesteban 15:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
OK.   Support, but that notice should be deleted, then. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait large.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 19:12:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Well he should have just went along with it, not try to own the image or whatever he did. --BoothSift 06:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing against your compassion for the photographer, but in my opinion we should only judge the photograph itself and not the story behind it. – Lucas 06:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Destroyed a photographer's life"? You must be joking. Actually he certainly made a huge amount of money selling this to whoever wanted it. This whole story was just a very successful marketing scam. Why do you think PETA claimed a copyright on it? For the animal's welfare? Ha! Ha! Ha! Regards, Yann (talk)
  •   Support I'd love to see the monkey to hold the copyright though. --Podzemnik (talk) 06:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Martin Falbisoner and per nom 2015
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granada (talk • contribs) 07:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I'm just not wowed by this regardless of who took it. People are handing cameras to animals or strapping them on them just to see what happens; there are whole TV shows based on the concept. All you get are tilted snapshots that are amusing for a short while. It's a sideshow fad. --Cart (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is pretty much a good picture. Sometimes humans don't manage to get so nice shots. The eyes are in focus, it is not blurry, the facial expression is awesome. The DoF is a bit narrow, but considering the distance, certainly a corrected version would get a chance as FP if it was nominated by a regular photographer. This picture is of good quality, it is a striking portrait, the monkey looks curious, smiling and surprised, that's what makes it great IMO. Because it is a selfie, it means the animal is 100% natural in its environment, not distracted by humans, just captivated by its "game". And that is special -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of good quality photos that doesn't wow me and this is one of them. Btw, it's debated weather the facial expressions of monkeys and apes show the same emotions as those of humans. --Cart (talk) 08:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Really ? Awesome, that might be one of them :-) -- Basile Morin (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ... and judging just the image I would say: insufficient DoF --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I've changed my view on this image over the years. I think what PETA did and what Wikimania did with the image was disgraceful and disrespectful, but PETA lawsuit aside, I don't buy the claim it destroyed his career. It looks like the photographer (like most) didn't have a particularly great career to begin with and is bitter that taking a viral photo didn't change things for the better. He claims he's "lost £10,000" but that's speculation about what he might have earned, not money he actually had and lost. If the 30 minutes of monkeying-around with his camera hadn't produced the "money selfie" he'd have been the same broke photographer he says he is now. The claim to fame is that it is entirely a "monkey selfie" whereas David's claim to ownership is that he engineered the situation. His story now is that he was attempting to photograph the apes as they groomed and played with him, but discovered they would play with the camera if he sat next to it, holding the tripod. If instead of being a "selfie", David had pressed the button as an ape gazed at her reflection in the glass, it wouldn't have been a "selfie" and not have gone viral. The whole magic of the photo is the "what's the chance of that?" and "what a clever ape!" reactions. Being a professional photographer is about consistently satisfying the client with great photos and being relied upon to do so next time, not one single photo created by a chance encounter in 30 mins. A look at David's website suggests this photo is the only thing that separates him from any other wildlife photographer who runs workshops to make a living. -- Colin (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Maybe, maybe not, who knows for sure. In any case I don't want commons to turn into a platform that pinches material from creators who don't consent or share their work voluntarily under a cc license. That's the main reasoning behind my opposing vote. The image actually might even warrant an FP status. It's striking, popular, well known & well done. --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 12:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with not pinching material, but the raison d'être for this image is that the ape is the "creator" and it was a wild chance encounter rather than a trained animal. If David had creative input into the work, then it isn't a "monkey selfie", and no different to any other (of many) photos of these apes grinning. But if the ape is the creator then they don't get copyright. Neither do US Gov employees, whether they consent voluntarily or not. I don't think David can have it both ways. I think it quite rational to oppose for the reasons you give. -- Colin (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is a striking image yes, but not the work of the owner of the camera. Otherwise you can claim to be the artist when someone just borrows your material, after publishing their shots in newspapers. Is that "your work" ? No. You just bought the camera, and expect to become millionnaire because someone talented pushed the button. In this case, the talented subject is a monkey, and legally there's no ownership for this species (fortunately or unfortunately, but in any case the owner of the camera would not be the artist). So, for now, this picture is like the work of someone who took a shot of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre Museum and claims to be the owner of the work. We just say "This painting is in the public domain", that's not "yours", it belongs to Da Vinci. But you engage lawyers and absolutely want to sell your photo of the Mona Lisa. Well, sorry that's your problem, there are laws. And now if you can't pay the attorneys, you're a bit responsible too. Maybe you can expect recognition for your work (go visiting the macaques in Indonesia), but only the fair part, not the extra part (means not this lucky selfie). That is public domain. Your story and the camera belong to you, you were not forced to publish anything, now the picture belongs to everyone -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think your comparison with photographing a PD artwork is valid. Copyright law is what it is, there is no logic to it, and the law is pretty settled in the US at least. The thing is, if David had set his camera up with an intervalometer to take a pic every few seconds, or had rigged a trigger trap to detect an ape walking by, or had remotely triggered the shutter when the ape pulled a funny face, he'd have full copyright of the image, but it would not have gone viral: it wouldn't be a "selfie". That's the claim he's chosen to make, and if you take him at his word that the ape took the photo, then he loses rights to the image. If instead, he engineered the photo, then his claim is a fraud, and he'd still not be entitled to his £10,000. -- Colin (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • What is not valid is to claim the ownership of something free, or the artwork belonging to someone else. Not really a strange law in my view -- Basile Morin (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart. All the backstory issues aside, the photo honestly doesn't wow me at all. It seems gimmicky and doesn't appeal to me, it's interesting as a novelty but the novelty wears off very quickly. Cmao20 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A snapshot by a monkey. Funny for one look but not a FP --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Berthold Werner, sorry. --A.Savin 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with Berthold.--Ermell (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ryan Hodnett (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- KennyOMG (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose An animal shot a featured picture candidate? --Neptuul (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Not if a monkey handle the drone :) --Neptuul (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A human opposing a monkey picture candidate? --Basile Morin (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose novelty shot just not that good and agree Martin. Seven Pandas (talk) 21:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my support  Neutral per Martin -- Piotr Bart (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info This image can f*ck up this nom but I will try it, you can hold me responsible even block me for a day for any mishap. IMO, the codes are fine -   --Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, as long as we know that it is a test of the Bot tasks/functions, it is ok.   --Cart (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose C-M (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support no less than I did four years ago. Between actually not being that bad and its historic interest, I see an FP. Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Cecile McLorin Salvant.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 14:14:32 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded by Jean-Pierre Dodel, Miami6205 - nominated by S. DÉNIEL - Portrait de la chanteuse de Jazz, Cécile McLorin Salvant.
  •   Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support A very radical photo, totally saved by the presence of her hand and the way both she and the background sparkle. This photo is also kinder to her pores and there is less CA. Btw, are you sure the copyright for this is ok? --Cart (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Unconventional style and very featureable because of it. It carries a personality. – Lucas 17:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support ——Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support To give a little critique, the background in the hand area is a bit disturbing. But good enough, I think. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I guess I'm the only one who really doesn't know what to make of this photo? I am not opposing, but I'm a bit unsure what to think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support Some technical issues, but I like the composition. --XRay talk 11:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Interesting composition, but it does not work for me --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with half head? Seven Pandas (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Piotr Bart (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No wow --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 12:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:20110102-Cecile-429 (2).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 25 May 2019 at 14:14:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created, uploaded by Jean-Pierre Dodel, Miami6205 - nominated by S. DÉNIEL - Portrait de la chanteuse de Jazz, Cécile McLorin Salvant.
  •   Support -- S. DÉNIEL (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even if the photo is artistic, having a cut eye is not a good crop. --Cart (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the other one has more action, better crop and a more interesting background. – Lucas 17:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart.--Peulle (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 19:24, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Cart--Boothsift (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Yeah, this one could be good if her eye weren't cropped. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Vulphere 15:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Piotr Bart (talk) 21:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 
Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it does not fall within the Guidelines and is unlikely to succeed because there is no way it could overcome this many opposes Anyone other than the nominator who disagrees may override this template by changing {{FPX}} to {{FPX contested}} and adding a vote in support. Voting will then continue in the usual way. If not contested within 24 hours, this nomination may be closed.

Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Amazon Kingfisher (27012341489).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 23:11:05 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

*  Support --Ermell (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately they voted twice--Boothsift (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry, mistake. Thanks for removing the vote.--Ermell (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as per A.Savin, the background is a bit disturbing Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect but overall pretty good. Cmao20 (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Bijay chaurasia (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 15:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support, although I agree with the idea of cropping the darker right out. Daniel Case (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Bighorn Sheep - Kananaskis.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 17:40:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dlieja Sacun apostul apsis a man dreta.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 16:56:46 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Nevertheless, if you know the year of composition, add it to the file description. If not, I think it's sufficiently explanatory. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I hope it's acceptable to oppose just because I find him ugly. – Lucas 17:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - IMO, yes, because that goes to "no wow". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If you’d support it, I should say the world is coming to its end. He might be ugly, but to me he is cosy and this fresco imho is ways, ages, miles more beautiful than this junk (pardon me!) --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 18:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Easy! He said he found the man depicted ugly, not that he found your photograph ugly for any other reason. In my humble opinion, it would be best if you backed off and tried not to make this personal. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment In fact, I din't mean the photos but the objects --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Eberstein Schlossberg 1 Schloss SO-Ansicht 07052019 6952.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 15:04:49 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Dominant tule elk bull, Point Reyes National Seashore.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 14:50:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Don't worry, you get off easy, I get all the IKEA banter and not just about living rooms...:-D --Cart (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Maria Wörth Pfarrkirche hll. Primus und Felizian und Rosenkranzkirche ONO-Ansicht 06052019 6767.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 06:59:17 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Yes, I know. But I only had the 70-200mm lens mounted. In position 70mm. And I was on top of a ship, that was moving towards the subjects. Sorry! -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You could at least crop out the rest of that house on the right, though that doesn't address the problems with the left crop. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice juxtaposition of the three towers and I don't mind the crop; the cut elements are too small in frame. – Lucas 08:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tower-church-church works well. But surely the tower has a name too that could be added to the description. Crop is fine, cropping out the house on the right would give the church (and final house) too little space and unbalance the image. --Cart (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice!--BoothSift 22:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I dissent. The crops left and right disturb me too much. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support something to the right might be a bit more balanced.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support although the light is not optimal --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support knowing the location with the vantage point on the water I find it (mainly in the context of Wikipedia) a bit misleading to not include at least a bit of the water. Still a nice picture. C-M (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:56, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wish the sky was better, but the angle is great all the same. Daniel Case (talk) 02:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Sun over Lake Hawea, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 24 May 2019 at 00:00:19 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured_pictures/Natural_phenomena#Sun
  •   Info All by me. -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Podzemnik (talk) 00:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Fairly simple effect - a strong diagonal set of beams - but very striking. Daniel likes to talk about memes; I could easily see this being used for religious memes, as people tend to associate sun rays in an otherwise mostly dark sky with the divine. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I can practically hear the celestial choir doing its oohs and aaahs over these crepuscular rays to end all crepuscular rays ... Daniel Case (talk) 04:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:View of the old bridge over Main in Wurzburg 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2019 at 21:38:13 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes
  •   Info View of the old bridge over the Main in Würzburg, Bavaria, Germany. The city of Würzburg is well-known for its lavish baroque and rococo architecture, much of which was painstakingly reconstructed after having been destroyed in WWII. I thought this was a pretty good cityscape - sharp, colourful and shows off the city well. Created by Tournasol7 - uploaded by Tournasol7 - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - There's a dust spot in the sky near the right margin. Otherwise, I share your appreciation for this picture and will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, you are quite right, it is fixed now. I have also fixed another dust spot in the sky in the middle of the image. Tournasol7, sorry for editing your picture but I think I have done an OK job of it; feel free to revert if you'd rather do it yourself. Cmao20 (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Cmao20; Don't worry. Thank you for this nomination and for editing my image too! Tournasol7 (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak Oppose The scene has FP potential, but here the large dark shadows covering the crowds are too distracting for me – Lucas 08:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The scene has potential but the light is rather uninspiring. --Cart (talk) 10:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Boothsift (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Fischer.H (talk) 17:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas --Piotr Bart (talk) 21:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Flat light, per Cart (also rather busy). Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Bath Abbey Eastern Stained Glass, Somerset, UK - Diliff.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2019 at 21:27:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Interiors/Religious buildings
  •   Info The stained glass and altar at the eastern end of Bath Abbey in Somerset, England. The church was founded in the seventh century and rebuilt in the twelfth and sixteenth centuries; the stained glass depicted is a late-Victorian addition. created by Diliff - uploaded by Diliff - nominated by Cmao20 -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cmao20 (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Of course! This is magnificent work. However, since FP search as usual is not working, I'm not seeing if there are any FPs of this abbey's interior already. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ikan Kekek, There is only one other FP of Bath Abbey, this one, which is taken in the opposite direction to the one I've nominated, and is more focussed on showing the fan-vaulted ceiling rather than the stained glass. I made sure that was the only one by looking through the entire religious building interiors category (or at least the UK section). Cmao20 (talk) 06:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Cog wheel on a huge crane claw - 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2019 at 19:28:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects#Machines
  •   Info One of my slightly odd photos. I have to admit that I'm totally biased wrt this, since I'm always moved by big old machinery. I can't help thinking about the lousy working conditions of the men operating them and how their families depended on these tools working to keep food on the table. I will certainly not be offended if you don't see what I see. Btw, no LUT or anything, just "shadows and rust". ;-) All by me, -- Cart (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Cart (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Now that you show it to me, I think I do see what you saw, but it's a tribute to your power of observation and imagination that you saw it when you chose to photograph it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support An excellent sharp detailed photo and those kind of images I don't see often on Commons --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I very much agree with you about the reasons old machinery carries an emotional interest. Excellent photo and unusual for FP. Cmao20 (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Cvmontuy (talk) 01:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--BoothSift 01:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 07:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I can smell this – Lucas 08:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Hockei (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --A.Savin 11:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support-- B2Belgium (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:19, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cart strikes again ... the detail here is fine in every sense. I also love the blue-orange contrast you've talked about so much. Daniel Case (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:2017.07.04.-17-Scharmuetzelsee-Bad Saarow--Nebelkraehe.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2019 at 18:08:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Birds/Passeriformes#Family : Corvidae (Crows, Jays and Magpies)
  •   Info All by me. -- Hockei (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Hockei (talk) 18:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I think most of us are probably not accustomed to think of crows as beautiful - intelligent, loud, interested/interesting, but not beautiful. However, this bird is truly beautiful, with all those slightly purplish blue feathers on its back and tail. The black head could stand to be more brightly lit, but I think this is an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Possibly a tad oversharpened? Otherwise good quality. Cmao20 (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. Crows are one of the most underrated birds. --BoothSift 01:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Schnobby (talk) 09:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think a closer crop at the top would make the crow look even more magnificent, but that's (probably) just me. --Cart (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The eyes / head shall stay close to the center. Especially when you zoom into the picture. Also the plants heads in the background would be cut off. The crop is right as it is IMO. --Hockei (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Zaadpluizen grote lisdodde (Typha latifolia). (d.j.b.).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 23 May 2019 at 05:12:04 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  •   Comment @Lucasbosch: Thank you for your comment. I could not find your note. I myself have found something in the lower left corner and removed it. Hopefully you meant that.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Famberhorst, you fixed one of the two, I've marked the other one. I'm wondering if your monitor is set up right if you don't see this one by yourself. – Lucas 19:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really wowed by it, sorry.--Peulle (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Didn't expect to support at first, but the detail at full-res is quite interesting and the sharpness is perfect. Cmao20 (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support A bit per Peulle--BoothSift 01:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle – Lucas 11:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not an excellent picture for me.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. To be blunt, if I didn't know what it was I'd think it was a turd on a stick. Daniel Case (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Kerspetalsperre (31858950837).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 21:49:24 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info created by Markus Trienke - uploaded by B2Belgium - nominated by B2Belgium -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- B2Belgium (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Lovely. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 01:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I would support this immediately if the tree on the left was not cropped so badly. Ruins the overall great composition. The rest is perfect. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Jakub – Lucas 07:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful. Cmao20 (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support per Jakub. -- King of ♠ 02:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Compositionally it grows on you, but while I'm OK with the tree at left, the unsharp forest at right is a different matter. Also, do we need so much sky? See suggested crop. Daniel Case (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Groove and needle in close embrace from beginning to end.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 20:36:47 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • +1 otherwise great. --Cart (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cmao20 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I will support, too, once Franz van Duns specifies the make and model of the turntable, or at least the tonearm (and the stylus if it's a different brand). I think that's relevant if anyone wants to use such a great closeup of a tonearm and stylus in a reference article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info My, I'm flabbergasted! A nomination as featured candidate just 10+ months after joining Wiki Commons. Yes, of course, I will provide all the requested information in due time. First of all, it is a Technics SL-120 turntable, purchased by a friend's father in the late 1970-ies. Second: the pick-up cartridge is a Shure V-15 type III Stereo Dynetic Phonograph Cartridge (now corrected), and together with the record player and a stash of exquisitely preserved classical records I also acquired a spare cartridge in an elegantly fashioned box. Third: I'll also try to find out the brand of the J-shaped tonearm. Finally: of course, I could easily remove the tiny dark triangle at lower right, or even make a fully sharp image of the currently blurred white knobs in the foreground by including a vastly greater number of images in the focus stack, but after having given thought to this matter (and others) I decided proactively to preserve these features. Why? When viewed at full resolution these supposedly distracting "kinks" just vanish in my eye. But, as King of Hearts noticed, it is not alone in my eye, but in the wiki user's to decide what is agreeable and appropriate at standard wiki viewing sizes. Phew, it is very late now in Germany - I'll muse over this matter tomorrow. Great thanks for your support!
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franz van Duns (talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  • Thanks, Franz, and welcome to FPC! Please sign your post (type 4 tildes [~] in a row), and also, please add the information about the turntable, tonearm and stylus to the file description on the file page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Cuz why not--BoothSift 01:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Like the detail and DoF. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The level of blur in the foreground is unpleasant -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Request Franz, per above, the make and model should get included on the file page, and also any major manipulations or double exposures should be mentioned. The image shows two tonearms, it should be made clear that the real thing only has one (if that's the case). – Lucas 07:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info It was getting really, really late and I made a few mistakes and omissions which I shall now correct. This "double-headed" image was explicitly created by me as a tongue-in-cheek entry for the somewhat whimsical Wiki Commons Photo challenge/2019 - April - Beginning and end, thus the contorted title "Groove and needle in close embrace from beginning to end" and the deliberately almost poetical description text related to the stylus' movement from, well, beginning to end. As conspicuously noted in a frame below the summary box on the image page it is composed as a focus stack of 20 images (to be precise I took two focus stacks, one with the cartridge on the left and the other after carefully having lifted the cartridge to the right. These two stacks were subsequently merged). Focus stacking is mandatory to achieve a great depth of detail in macroscopic regions, but also works just as well for larger objects. When I participated in the above mentioned competition last month I assumed that the concise information I had provided would suffice for that purpose. I now see a certain conflict concerning the demands for (a) a contest entry versus (b) an unexpected nomination for featured picture status. For this reason I will momentarily refrain from altering the image during the current voting period, given that I have already been awarded 2 stars for exactly this version and will not replace it by one of the two focus stacks it is based on, but, as Lucas suggests, I will duly add some extra facts to the text. By the way, the pick-up arm is a SME model 3009 series II improved. Thanx for all your comments. I am willing to learn from you all, as a community. Franz van Duns (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Franz van Duns, per Ikan's and Lucas' comments above, could you please add the technical info, as well as the part about the double exposure, you have given us here to the |description= part of the file info on the file's page. This page will be archived in 9 days and the info needs to accompany the file for all users to see in a convenient way. Thank you. --Cart (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. The file description should now adequately reflect the technical background both of the depicted object and the major steps entailed towards the final image. Franz van Duns (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 13:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Podzemnik (talk) 00:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:29, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile – Lucas 11:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blending two images like this does not work for me, at least not from this angle --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:20, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Worth the attempt, but ultimately doesn't work. Daniel Case (talk) 01:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre Tetlin, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-24, DD 65-68 PAN.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 20:23:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Natural
  •   Info Reflexions in the Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, United States. c/u/n by me, Poco2 20:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 20:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Lovely mood. And no stitching errors this time   Cmao20 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Are you sure about the FP cat? This could very well belong in Commons:Featured pictures/Natural phenomena#Reflections. I also feel it would be more harmonious without the last bit right. See note. --Cart (talk) 21:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I would also support the version of the photo that Cart prefers, but I find the variation on the right more interesting than not having it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for me --BoothSift 01:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quite uninteresting in my view. Neither the grey sky nor the dark silhouette are really special -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nothing besides the reflection. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above, I can't get into the mood with this. And there's an obnoxious white box littered on the shore.Lucas 07:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 11:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it would work better if the right part was cropped out (as suggested by Cart) + the island would be exactly in the center. Now there is more space for the reflection than the clouds. --Podzemnik (talk) 00:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support although I agree with Cart's proposed crop. Daniel Case (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The light isn't very nice. Not special enough. Christian Ferrer (talk) 03:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Christian Ferrer. -- B2Belgium (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Roque de los Muchachos - ORM - LST-1 - 01.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 18:09:27 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects
  •   Info created by Llez - uploaded by Llez - nominated by Llez -- Llez (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Llez (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I get the feeling there is a better angle from which to capture this structure and how it works, one that shows less of the—to me—not photogenic maintenance buildings and access ladders and the green fence. Maybe also showing more of the natural environment. As it is this doesn't wow me and feels too ordinary photographically. There is a good compositional element in this, though, the strong diagonal towards the upper right edge, but there's not quite enough lead room for that to make it work. – Lucas 19:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Not perfect per Lucas, but the subject is very interesting and I think it deserves a feature. Cmao20 (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is having nerd-me sitting up and take notice, salivating. I think that equals wow. --Cart (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Great photograph to me, of a much more sophisticated version of a tinker toy construction by brilliant adult engineers. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 01:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It has some halos in the center and upper part of the structure, can you fix it? --Cvmontuy (talk) 01:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done --Llez (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now because it is tilted. --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Done See the fence door at the left corner --Llez (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
      •   Support now --Uoaei1 (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --XRay talk 11:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Buddha Amitabha in His Pure Land of Suvakti.JPGEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 11:25:43 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • @Llez: This is certainly not perfectly rectangular. From the right side, it seems to be tilted CCW. But from the bottom, it seems to be tilted CW. And from the left side and the top, it seems OK. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:A member of the ATS (Auxiliary Territorial Service) serving with a 3.7-inch anti-aircraft gun battery, December 1942. TR452.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 11:15:08 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/People
  •   Info created by Malindine E G (Lt), Tanner (Lt), War Office official photographer, uploaded by Ducksoup, nominated by Yann (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support As a tribute to the roles women have played in the Second World War. I didn't even know that women had such an active role. -- Yann (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very impressive. The Auxiliary Territorial Service, by the way, was entirely female, and any single or married British woman aged between 17 and 43 was allowed to volunteer for it. So this was quite a common thing; over 640000 women overall served in the ATS and other auxiliary services, mostly in air defence tasks as pictured here. Cmao20 (talk) 11:45, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Historical importance aside, photographically this is lacking. The composition with her pose and sightline crossing the gun looks just silly to me and it feels not enough background is included to provide good context. The large shadow below her left shoulder is distracting. – Lucas 13:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--BoothSift 00:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Works for me, and I think there is enough background in the file description to sufficiently understand what she and we are looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Historic value, and pretty good color and detail for that time IMO. Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Berchtesgaden 50 Pfg 1920.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 22 May 2019 at 06:16:38 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Historical
  •   Info Issued by the Town of Berchtesgaden (1920) reproduced from an original specimen, uploaded and nominated by Palauenc05
  •   Support -- Palauenc05 (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. The post-processing is too obvious: the outer edges of the pieces of paper look natural on some sides, but others—especially on the right—were just cut off digitally and we’re left with extremely sharp lines. – Lucas 06:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Beautiful and an FP for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral since we already have a few similar pictures in the category now.--Peulle (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I really hate to say it, but the copyright status is unclear as the {{PD-GermanGov-currency}} tag does not apply. This is not a "unit of currency issued by Germany". It was neither issued by a "German federal or state authority" nor by a "predecessor state" but by the Town of Berchtesgaden. It's old enough for {{PD-US-expired}} but that doesn't cover the copyright status in the country of origin. --El Grafo (talk) 09:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I see what Lucas means but personally I don't find it a major fault. Hopefully copyright concerns can be resolved. Cmao20 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   SupportMartin Falbisoner (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 08:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 14:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 05:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Seven Pandas (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Estufa principal do Jardim Botânico de Curitiba 02.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 May 2019 at 10:30:02 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture
  •   Info created and uploaded by Rodrigo.Argenton - nominated by Arion -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 10:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- 😄 ArionEstar 😜 10:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Piotr Bart (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Even though it is in a botanical garden, the building looks too small compared to the flower bed in the foreground. Flowers rarely look good in dusky or dark photos. --Cart (talk) 11:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's OK for me, I like the contrast between the red building and the blueish sky. Cmao20 (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral This one per Cart but I still don't want to oppose it yet. --BoothSift 22:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - No wow for me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the background buildings and objects to the left and right of the main building are too distracting – Lucas 06:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Works for me. --Yann (talk) 05:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, too --Llez (talk) 08:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not just per Cart. I can understand why the photographer wanted to use a long exposure; however I think it outsmarted itself. The building looks like it's on fire or about to melt, probably not the desired effect, and the clouds are distracting. The whole effect is of a photograph that doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the "photographer" (Rodrigo) here, well I pretty much now what I want, and what I want when I grow up... nothing that matters to this evaluation.
But, just to explain for the others, first it was dark and this is a Kiss X7, a noisy entry level camera, so long exposure was a necessity.
Second, I wanted more DOF, without stacking a lot of photos (also because of the next reason)
And finally, the most important, to remove the people around the building, that you even notice, but they were a lot, I mean a lot:i.e., i.e., of people, especially in the light events.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton, you misunderstood Daniel. He is talking about the photo growing up, not you. It is a metaphor that can easily get "lost in translation". --Cart (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Santuario de Fátima bint Musa, Qom, Irán, 2016-09-19, DD 14.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 May 2019 at 08:14:23 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Religious buildings
  •   Info Bottom view of the iwan of the main entrance of Fatima Masumeh Shrine, Qom, Iran. The burial site dates from beginning of the 17th century in times of shah Abbas the Great. Qom is a very crowded pilgrimage location and is considered by Shia Muslims to be the second most sacred city in Iran after Mashhad. All by me, Poco2 08:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Poco2 08:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice quality. Cmao20 (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The recording is too restless for me, Sorry.--Fischer.H (talk) 16:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Majestic --Gnosis (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--BoothSift 22:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine architecture! 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 14:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Seems slightly tilted, although in different directions depending on what part of the image you're looking at. Daniel Case (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose the way these modern lamps are sticking out from the historic facade is not pleasant for me – Lucas 07:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Paysandisia archon MHNT Dos Vif Fronton.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 21 May 2019 at 05:41:11 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  Comment Butterflies are alive and very capricious! By shooting at F25-29 you are sure to have a good quality image, with diffractions. At F7-10 you have a very beautiful image but if it moves it will be fuzzy and if it does not move you will have a lot of areas that will be out of depth of field. In this case, the distortions have been corrected. The iridescence on the butterflies are all natural.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Diffraction softness. – Lucas 08:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - This insect is only 90-110 mm, so I feel impelled to support because of the excellent level of detail relative to size, and also the fine composition, without prejudice to the discussion on diffraction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:52, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support In fact he did not move! I had time to catch it, it was entrusted to the entomologists of the MHNT where it was naturalized and it is part of the collections. The palm was slaughtered along with 5 others. The infection is still in progress but it is contained without the need for further slaughter. Thanks to Boothsift (talk · contribs) for this nomination --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Famberhorst (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support I wish it didn't have that diffraction, but if that was the only one to get an image without motion blur, then so be it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

John Cotton's NotebookEdit

Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 12:55:22 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media#Animals
  •   Info created by John Cotton/ State Library of Victoria - uploaded by Pigsonthewing - nominated by Pigsonthewing -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Additional info "44 images (samples below above) of sketches of the birds of the Port Phillip District, NSW, Australia, made in the notebook of the ornithologist John Cotton between 1844 and his death in 1849. Kudos to the State Library of Victoria, who have digitised these and made these high-resolution tiffs freely available, recognising that no copyright in them exists." per Andy Mabbett's comment on the FPC talk page. --Cart (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support High value.--Peulle (talk) 14:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Are we to understand that you are in fact nominating the entire notebook, since you have that title on the nom as well as the "samples" in your comment? If an image is to be integrated into the FP system, every image need to be included in the nomination, not just a few samples. All the images will be examined individually, and all of them needs to hold the FP standard in order for the set to be promoted. It's a pretty tall order with 44 images... but if so, you need to withdraw this nom and create a new one with all the images. One of the now active users who have made similar large batch noms is Adam Cuerden, perhaps he can give you a few pointers. I have also changed the FP category since "Animals/Birds" is for species photos of birds; these are paintings with several families on some pages. --Cart (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
    • [ec] I am indeed nominating all 44 files in Category:John Cotton's Notebook. I think they're all worthy of the status, but I'm sure the community can decide whether to pass all or just some of them. I thought that showing all 44 would make the page too slow to load, but at your suggestion have now added them above - there's no point restarting the poll, as only User:Peulle has expressed a preference.
      — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC) (UTC)
  •   Comment These are very good, but I think for them to qualify as a set nomination we'd need to nominate all of them rather than a fairly random selection. I would support if we had a nomination with all the images. Cmao20 (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Based on the clarification that we are indeed considering the entire notebook. Cmao20 (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Gnosis (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as not any single page considered by itself is FP-worthy for me and being a complete set should not lower standards. On the reproduction side, the resolution is far too low to appreciate any details. The Phase One P 45 this is captured with has 39 MP but here not even half of that is left (deep crop or—most likely—a downscale for the web archive).
    Basic leveling correction and better cropping around the pages is needed. I have a suspicion that pages laying underneath could be leaking through and these pages are visible on the edges poking out (especially that green sticker). Each page should have been folded to be separate. Some pages should be turned vertically because the drawing and text demands it.
    On the artwork itself: one page doesn't even contain any drawings, only text. Some pages have their drawings not colored in but in an earlier draft stage and a lot of pages have a mix of drafts and fully colored birds and their environment. Only the pages with fully colored drawings, in full resolution and some minor corrections done (see above) would get my support. – Lucas 21:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Before I would even consider some of these paintings and their texts for FP, I would like to have transcriptions of the text on the file pages, identifying what birds are depicted and what the text says about them. Perhaps with accompanying files where the texts are identified in some way similar to these hand painted Canton maps by a Swedish cartographer (also made in the age of the explorers), that I transcribed and translated some time ago: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Old documents like these should be as comprehensive and correctly presented as possible for FPs. --Cart (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've looked at only a few of the photos so far, but the ones I looked at were FPs to me, so I'd expect to support a set nomination if the transcriptions Cart refers to were made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A lot of work here, but I do agree with Lucas, Poco2 23:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose So many of these pages would not be featured if they were nominated separately (example). Orientation is clearly wrong for 9 of them. Normal historical documents including poor sketches. Ugly black frames -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Very good arguments about the orientations and some of the sketches. This is not an FP. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support We can't avoid the back border. Orientation is not an issue for me. As for the quality, we also need to consider the book as a whole. Regards, Yann (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Different solutions exist to avoid these heavy and unaesthetic black borders. Either you insert a white sheet of paper behind your document when you scan or when you shoot (like this), or you make fine crops with clean restorations of the corners of each page (like this). In both cases, you get elegant images when you download and print afterwards -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per the above discussions--BoothSift 05:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The book is really valuable, useful and pretty, but I don't think that FP are about featuring whole books. --Podzemnik (talk) 05:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Podzemnik and my comment about the texts above. Basile also has a point wrt how to present the pages. This whole nom seems like a job less than half done. --Cart (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile Morin.--Fischer.H (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Podzemnik and others. -- Colin (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Basile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per the above discussions. Vulphere 14:04, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Lucas. Daniel Case (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal.jpg (delist and replace)Edit

Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 05:22:46
   

  •   Info Better quality and larger frame. For such a historical picture, it is better to keep it as close to the original as possible. In the previous nomination, several people said that this version is better. (Original nomination)
  •   Delist and replace -- Yann (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Per my comments on the previous nomination. Cmao20 (talk) 07:13, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace for the reasons stated in the previous nomination. – Lucas 08:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace per above --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Per above. --BoothSift 17:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Per above. --Cayambe (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace p.a. ― Gerifalte Del Sabana 06:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace Daniel Case (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace . Vulphere 14:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Delist and replace -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Pemahat Patung Asmat.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 05:10:48 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

Moving to   Neutral per below--BoothSift 22:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image is clearly tilted. I don't mind the perspective distorsions, but here the ground should be horizontal. Including this overexposed window in the composition was not a good idea, another angle would have been better. Also the foreground is excessively blurry -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Original and nice motif, but along with the tilt the overexposed area is significant and annyoing (a perspective correction would indeed help there), the top crop is suboptimal and there is no single category Poco2 07:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. --Cart (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. --Cayambe (talk) 09:17, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. Daniel Case (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. Vulphere 14:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

File:WhatOurGirlsAreDoing.pngEdit

Voting period ends on 20 May 2019 at 02:33:29 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Non-photographic media
  •   Info created by Hal Eyre - uploaded by Jasonanaggie - nominated/restored by Ezarate -- Ezarateesteban 02:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- I found it abandoned without categories, I only did restoration, I can't improve description and categories Ezarateesteban 02:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's interesting and I like it, but I think the frame is not considered part of the composition, nor is the mat. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems OK to me and I have supported similar in the past. As Ikan says there's an argument that keeping the frame isn't really necessary. Cmao20 (talk) 07:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I keep part of the frame @Ikan Kekek: @Cmao20: Ezarateesteban 11:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 17:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The text on the drawing should be transcribed on the file page. Some people could have a hard time reading it, and an FP should be as good as possible. --Cart (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't understand the manuscript letter too much, could you please provide the transcription, please? Ezarateesteban 23:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok done. The next time perhaps you should stick to nominating things you understand since you are responsible for your nom. --Cart (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks W.carter. Remember that Wikimedia projects are based on collaborative projects, all we must help to picture be featured Ezarateesteban 13:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
@Ezarate Wikimedia Commons is surely a collaborative project, but I agree with Cart that you as nominator are responsible for the picture and the nomination. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment So far, I don't understand why this should become Featured. I assume the drawing is supposed to be funny - I have to admit I'm struggling to get the point. Perhaps more context would make it easier to understand. There are plenty of drawings from the same author. Are we going to feature all of them? We already have this drawing featured from the same author. I think that might be enough for now, unless something exceptional appears. --Podzemnik (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Daniel Case (talk) 01:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support. Vulphere 14:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Moose in Bowron Lake Provincial Park, BC (DSCF3986).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 May 2019 at 15:14:55 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Animals/Mammals#Order_:_Artiodactyla_(Even-toed ungulate)
  •   Info by User:Trougnouf
  •   Support -- Trougnouf (talk) 15:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too centered composition and one animal looking directly at us (I know their wide field of view but it feels that way) spoils it. – Lucas 16:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
      Comment I can change the crop if that'd change your vote, see File:Screenshots of Darktable processing Moose in Bowron Lake Provincial Park, BC (DSCF3986).jpg.png, feel free to add a note on that image. --Trougnouf (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
    The crop alone wouldn't change my vote. – Lucas 20:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas. I might have supported this image if the animals were at the left part of the photo --Michielverbeek (talk) 20:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Lucas--BoothSift 22:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a wow-y composition and bland light. --Cart (talk) 04:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - The moose aren't that sharp, and there's too much grass and not enough of them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I'll go against the grain and support this one. There's something very evocative about the scenery, it reminds me of the paintings of Albert Bierstadt to some extent. I like the layered composition with the distant trees, the water in the middleground and the reeds in the foreground. Cmao20 (talk) 07:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak support A closer crop might be better, but as per Cmao20 otherwise. --Yann (talk) 04:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not close enough. The grass and the trees do provide a nice background/foreground but the bush behind the moose is not a good compositional element. -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me. 😄 ArionEstar 😜 00:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. Daniel Case (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Angela Conner 'Renaissance' water sculpture, Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, England 1.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 19 May 2019 at 08:35:07 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Objects/Sculptures#Fountains
  •   Info created & uploaded by User:Acabashi - nominated by User:Ikan Kekek.
  •   Support I got mixed but mostly positive feedback at COM:Photography critiques, so I decided to try a nomination here and see how it does. I love the form and the dramatic juxtaposition of the partly sunlit metallic gray sculpture with the much more threatening dark gray and white thunderstorm clouds, a kind of commentary to me on the difference between the cheery fountains in which humans control water and the elemental forces that actually keep us alive, but on their own sometimes violent terms. (By the way, are fountains "Objects"? Please recategorize if you can do better.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • FP cat fixed. --Cart (talk) 08:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The cold light on the sculpture and water plus the clouds are gorgeous, but the very black shadows in the trees spoils the image IMO. Might be fixable from raw. --Cart (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I respect your measured criticism. To me, they seem to be part of the mood, although either way, they're secondary. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't mind the dark trees enough for not supporting the image. --Podzemnik (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Ikan, the mood definitely has something. Cmao20 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support 😄 ArionEstar 😜 12:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cart, it looks too unrealistic to me and doesn't create the mood. – Lucas 16:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- King of ♠ 21:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Llez (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --BoothSift 22:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Although there is a slight tilt and a perspective correction would help, you were a bit too close to the scultpure, too --Poco2 07:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The sculpture and the sky do work, but I'm finding the trees and the garden furniture to be a bit distracting and awkwardly positioned. -- Colin (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I understand your reaction. Thanks for looking at the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As already explained at COM:CRIT, I don't really dig this. --El Grafo (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose per Cart. Daniel Case (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Neutral As per Cart and others, the darks/shadows on the right side in the trees are maybe too dark that you're loosing some details. Love the composition though and the trees are not major focus of this photo. -- Jakub Fryš (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 11:41, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz (talk) 15:50, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Alchemist-hp (talk) 06:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)


秀逸除外候補Edit

Featured picture candidatesEdit

File:Trillium grandiflorum at the North Walker Woods.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 03:20:57 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:New Brighton Pier during the sunset, Christchurch, New Zealand.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 28 May 2019 at 03:00:25 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Tempio Capitolino Piazza del Foro Brescia.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 19:39:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Cityscapes#Italy
  •   Info All by Moroder -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I like the subject very much and I think it deserves an FP, but can something be done about the noise in the sky? I find it a little bit too much at the moment. Cmao20 (talk) 20:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It is not rilevant at normal size (100%). You must not blow up the image ad infinitum --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please fix CA. Some NR on the sky would also help, per Cmao. -- King of ♠ 02:10, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I see a bunch of dust spots at full size, though they're subtle; the most evident ones are near the upper right corner, but there are others. After you fix them (or at least the most evident ones), I will support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Ponte Barca Abril 2019-1c.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 17:56:01 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Category: Commons:Featured pictures/Places/Architecture/Bridges
  •   Info View of River Lima and bridge, in Ponte da Barca, Portugal. Second try (see here, plese). There is nothing wrong with the color space and Hugin is not to blame. Maybe only the blue channel was too close to saturation. I made minor adjustments. All by Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I still like the colours to be honest, I think they're quite effective at conveying the mood. Cmao20 (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 20:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Tomer T (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --СССР (talk) 03:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question - The sky was really that aquamarine? And did the clouds look as blotchy? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:07, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

File:Aletta Jacobs, 1895-1905.jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 27 May 2019 at 06:56:44 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

File:Stargazer snake eel (Brachysomophis cirrocheilos) (14419490013).jpgEdit

Voting period ends on 26 May 2019 at 17:46:45 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.

  • Ok Eatcha, time for "The Talk" since you are still a bit new here and don't know everything about the FPC system. Please read these posts: Post 1 and Post 2. Thanks! --Cart (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cart for notifying me about the problem, but it's actually designed to read any image larger than 150 as an alternative. ∴ any image which is defined smaller than 150 can be used without any problem. Please define them smaller than 150px, it's not a function of actual file size. -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 12:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, what is written in the Bot description and what is happening in reality are often two very different things since the Bot is malfunctioning on many levels. This little eye is smaller than your little happy guy, even so it caused the Bot to close the nom like this with an "Alt" comment. Do as you wish, I just hope you are not causing any trouble for this nom. --Cart (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I actually read this in the codes of the bot, but I do not want to mess with this nom. I'm removing it. Will try it on my monkey nom. Thanks for quick reply -- Eatcha (Talk-Page) 13:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Well camouflaged, nature is amazing--